Center for a New American Security

There is a good discussion going on at the National Journal this week on the role of clean energy in powering the U.S. military. The discussion comes on the heels of an effort by the House Armed Services Committee to constrain DOD’s ability to procure biofuels that are not cost competitive with conventional petroleum.

As I noted in the National Journal yesterday, recent congressional activity suggests to me that there is a bit of confusion about the military’s motivations to invest in biofuels. To be clear, these efforts are not, as some headlines suggest, for the sole purpose of combating climate change or promoting eco-friendly interests over military ones. Although being environmentally sustainable and promoting energy security are not mutually exclusive, it is important to understand first and foremost why the military is undertaking this effort: It is all about mission effectiveness and ensuring that our soldiers, sailors and airmen have access to the fuel they need to conduct their operations and protect U.S. interests. (Read more on this point here.)

Nevertheless, the rumblings on Capitol Hill suggest that the role of the military in advancing alternative energy solutions could be a chokepoint for congressional action as both chambers seek to reconcile their own versions of the 2013 Defense Authorization bill. Senator Mark Udall of Colorado weighed in on the National Journal discussion this morning, stating that “As the Senate Armed Services Committee marks up our version of the 2013 defense authorization bill this week, one of the key provisions under scrutiny will be how we approach the military’s use and development of alternative-fuel technologies.”

To that end, the National Journal discussion is an important and welcome one. The country should be having a public debate about the role of the military in advancing alternative energy solutions and clarify any uncertainty or misconceptions about what the military’s motivations are for advancing clean energy solutions. Simply put, it is first and foremost about preserving the military’s ability to protect U.S. national security interests by hedging against uncertainty around petroleum prices and supply, and ensuring that the military has the energy it needs to fuel the force.

Learn more about the challenges DOD faces with sustainable access to petroleum in our 2010 study, Fueling the Future Force. 

Follow the National Journal discussion here.    

The U.S. Navy does not have the assets it needs to conduct long-term Arctic maritime operations and will have to increasingly rely on the U.S. Coast Guard or international partners in order to accomplish its missions, according to a Sunday report in the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

According to the report, the U.S. Navy asked the U.S. Naval War College to conduct a war game in September 2011 to explore what the U.S. Navy would need to execute long-term missions in the High North. “We looked at search and rescue, oil spill response, maritime domain and maritime safety and security issues," Walter Berbrick, assistant research professor in the War Gaming Department at the Center for Naval Warfare Studies, told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. “They were all fictional scenarios.”

The war game’s conclusions, according to the report, may suggest looming challenges for America’s ability to project power and protect its interests in the Arctic. According to the report:

[T]he Navy is not adequately prepared to conduct long-term maritime Arctic operations; Arctic weather conditions increase the risk of failure; and most critically, to operate in the Arctic, the Navy will need to lean on the U.S. Coast Guard, countries like Russia or Canada, or tribal and industrial partners.

 

To sustain operations in the Arctic, the Navy needs ice-capable equipment, accurate and timely environmental data, personnel trained to operate in extreme weather, and better communications systems. Much of the environmental data will come from other Arctic nations.

The report particularly notes the U.S. Navy’s lack of ice-capable ships. “We have limited capability to sustain long-term operations in the Arctic due to inadequate icebreaking capability," Berbrick told the Fairbanks Daily News-Miner. "The Navy finds itself entering a new realm as it relates to having to rely on other nations." Interestingly, the report also notes that the Navy (in large part because of its lack of ice-capable ships) will increasingly work with the U.S. Coast Guard, which has had a greater presence in the region as of late. Yet the U.S. Coast Guard’s missions in the Arctic are also undermined by its inadequate icebreaking capability – although there is renewed interest in expanding the U.S. Coast Guard’s icebreaking fleet, which now consists of one active and two inactive vessels.

On Wednesday, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus testified before the Senate Appropriations Sub-committee for Defense about the Navy’s fiscal year 2013 budget request. Discussing the Navy’s energy program, Secretary Mabus emphasized that “we'll maintain our efforts to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and use energy more efficiently. These efforts have already made us better war fighters.” Secretary Mabus added that:

By deploying to Afghanistan with solar blankets to charge radios and other electrical items a Marine patrol dropped 700 pounds in batteries from their packs and decreased the need for risky resupply missions. Using less fuel in theaters can mean fewer fuel convoys which will save lives. For every 50 convoys we bring in, a Marine is killed or wounded. That is too high a price to pay. We already know the reality of a volatile global oil market. Every time the cost of barrel of oil goes up a dollar, it costs the Department of the Navy an additional $31 million in fuel cost. These price spikes have to be paid for out of our operational funds. That means that we sail less, we fly less, we train less. For these reasons, we have to be relentless in our pursuit of energy goals that will continue to make us a more effective fighting force in our military and our nation for energy independence. 

Photo: On March 7, 2012, Secretary Mabus testified before the Senate Appropriations Sub-Committee for Defense. Courtesy of Chief Mass Communication Specialist Sam Shavers and the U.S. Navy. 

The Navy’s investment in algae biofuel is having a significant impact on the cost of alternative fuels. Earlier this year, the Navy announced a request for 450,000 gallons of algae biofuel, the largest demand for advanced biofuel to date.  At a Department of Defense Bloggers Roundtable in August 2011, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus said that with the Navy’s modest demand alone, the price of algae biofuel fuel was cut in half last year and is projected to be cut in half again this year.

Last week, Secretary Mabus announced that the Navy will spend $12 million to buy the requested 450,000 gallons of alternative biofuel for continued testing and evaluation in the Navy’s aircraft, ships and remote piloted vehicles. The cost, according to Mabus, comes to about $26 a gallon. Granted, that’s still a steep price to pay for fuel. But, Secretary Mabus, said, “This is still R&D.” He added, “As the market develops, you will see the cost come down.” Moreover, the new purchase is about 94 percent cheaper than what the Navy paid for its first batch of alternative fuel in 2009: $424 a gallon for 20,055 gallons of biofuel.

The price difference in just two short years aptly demonstrates that significant impact that Navy’s demand signal is having on the cost of alternative fuels, just in the research and development phase alone.

The Navy will conduct its final alternative fuel demonstration for the year this morning in Panama City, Florida. The Navy will test a Landing Craft Air Cushion operating on a 50-50 blend of hydro-processed algal oil and conventional petroleum.

At a briefing yesterday before the Defense Energy Security Caucus, Admiral Philip Cullom, director of the Navy’s Energy and Environmental Readiness Division, spoke to the Navy’s energy security efforts as enhancing the Navy’s war fighting capabilities. And really, that’s what the Navy’s and the other services’ efforts are all about – increasing operational effectiveness through energy efficiency, conservation and innovation. It’s important to remember this point because the choices the services are making in their energy security strategies reflect new technologies and requirements that bolster, not detract from, mission effectiveness. The Navy, for example, would not support the development of alternative liquid fuels that compromise the performance of its air or ship fleet. The choices they make must serve their war fighting capability.

In his remarks yesterday, Admiral Cullom reminded the audience that the Navy has a history of doing this very well. In April 1942, several months after the attacks against Pearl Harbor, Lieutenant Colonel James Doolittle orchestrated a counterattack against Tokyo using a fleet of B-25s launched from the deck of the aircraft carrier Hornet. But the Navy had never done this before, and didn’t know if it could: the carrier runways were too short for the heavy B-25s to takeoff, and it was unclear if they could carry enough fuel for the aviators to reach allied forces in China safely. So, as Admiral Cullom reminded the audience, Doolittle stripped the B-25s of every non-essential piece in the aircraft, making the B-25 lighter and thus more fuel efficient, extending its range several hundred miles so that the aviators could hit their targets and fly to China. It was a successful war-time demonstration of how making air platforms more efficient could enhance the military’s war fighting capability in ways that in the months before seemed impossible. 

Yesterday, the U.S. Navy reached another milestone with a successful demonstration of shipboard alternative fuel, using a 50-50 blend of algae-based oil and petroleum F-76. The demonstration was conducted aboard the decommissioned Spruance-class destroyer Paul F. Foster, a “Self-Defense Test Ship to provide the Navy an at-sea, remotely controlled, engineering test and evaluation platform without the risk to personnel or operational assets.”

Photo: Courtesy of Charlie Houser and the U.S. Navy. 

Once again the Navy is proving to do great things with alternative energy. Last Friday, the Navy reached a new milestone in its biofuel testing program with the successful flight of an EA-6B Prowler. "Given the EA-6B Prowler's critical role in joint warfare it was important that we complete this qualification to allow carrier air wings and expeditionary sites the operational flexibility to utilize biofuel," said Capt. John Green, program manager for the EA-6B.

The Prowler test flight is the most recent in a string of successful demonstrations this year, including a T-45 training aircraft and, most recently, the entire F/A-18 Blue Angels squadron. The Navy is scheduled to test a 50/50 blend of biofuel in the AV-8B Harrier and the Fire Scout unmanned helicopter later this year.  

Photo: Courtesy of Kelly Schindler and the U.S. Navy.

Ever wonder what the U.S. Navy does during its annual ICEX training in the Arctic? All Hands Television has the scoop in this video of the 2011 exercises that runs less than 10 minutes and is worth watching.  Watch the video here. Below I have also provided some quick takeaways that I thought were interesting. Some of them are intuitive but are worth highlighting:

• As new sea lanes open up in the Arctic, the U.S. Navy and others plying those routes will continue to relying on research and science to guide the way. (Something that policymakers in Washington need to consider as they decide on non-discretionary spending cuts, including science programming.) In fact, researchers in the video stress that if the U.S. Navy and others are going to operate in the Arctic, they have to be prepared to operate in that environment – which means being very familiar with this dynamic region.  
• The U.S. Navy provides researchers with longitudinal data to study climate change in the Arctic. Submarines have been storing information about ice thickness since the 1950s, providing researchers with data to understand how that thickness has been changing for more than 60 years and in the wake of global climate change.
• The biggest challenge that submariners face in the Arctic is that, unlike in other seas around the world, they can’t surface just anywhere they want because of the ice thickness in parts of the Arctic Circle. Indeed, this poses some operational challenges that can only be addressed by training in that environment. For example, submarines originally surface at an angle in order to dampen the stress on the their hull. However, punching through three to four feet of ice in the Arctic requires vertical surfacing.
• Besides submarine operations, the U.S. Navy controls and manages all the flight operations that support Arctic missions, including helicopter flights with field parties traveling to remote sites in the Arctic.

What I find particularly interesting is how much time the U.S. Navy’s Public Affairs team put into developing this video in what seems like a direct effort to explain why the Arctic is important to not just the U.S. Navy, but the country as a whole. It’s a great video, and I hope we’ll see more. Perhaps it’s the beginning of a big push to educate policymakers in Washington just as they prepare to make important decisions about federal budget cuts this fall.

Happy Labor Day everyone! We are taking a brief holiday from the blog today, but we wanted to note the Navy’s milestone this weekend. The Navy’s F/A-18 Blue Angels squadron successfully tested a 50/50 blend of biofuel and jet fuel at the Patuxent River Air Expo on September 3, 2011. As Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus noted last week, this is the first time an entire squadron tested the biofuel blend during aerial demonstrations.

Photo: Courtesy of Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kiona Miller and the U.S. Navy.